Environmental considerations

3.2.1. Background and previous research

The same environmental restrictions and considerations apply to conventional timber production as to production of biomass for energy purposes. The environmental restrictions are materialized in legislation and certification regimes focusing on forestry in general. Harvesting of forest residues (branches and tops) and below-ground biomass (stumps and roots) for energy purposes, however, raise some additional concerns (see e.g. Bohlin & Roos 2002, Rudolphi & Gustafsson 2005, Stupak et al. 2007, Lattimore et al. 2009, Lauren et al. 2008, Rabinowitsch-Jokinen & Vanha-Majamaa 2010). Since a large proportion of all nutrients in trees is located in their needles, removing residues will reduce nutrient supply to soils, and in the long run this may increase the risk of nutrient imbalance and reduced productivity (Raulund-Rasmussen et al. 2008). Removing residues may also affect biodiversity and change species composition (Åström et al. 2005). The removal of stumps and roots raises concerns regarding risks of landslides, less organic matter in soils, and decreases in substrates important for some species (Stupak et al. 2007, Lindhe 2009). A few European countries have developed guidelines or recommendations for harvesting forest residues and below-ground biomass (Stupak et al. 2007), but currently there are no guidelines in Norway. However, in future it is expected that such guidelines will be developed as a part of certification standards.

Environmental considerations in previous Norwegian assessments of potential biomass resources for energy have in general been relatively simple, and only very rough estimates of the impacts have been done (OED 1997, NOU 1998, KanEnergi 2003, 2007). Also, the assessments by Langerud et al. (2007), Hobbelstad (2007a, 2007b), and Gjølsjø & Hobbelstad (2009) were

relatively simple, and few attempts were made to make the restrictions spatially explicit or to distinguish between different types of restrictions.

Regarding assessments of available timber resources, comprehensive analyses of environmentally oriented restrictions at national and regional levels as well as at property level have been done (Hoen et al. 1998, Eid et al. 2001, 2002). This work was done as a part of the Living Forest project (see section 3.2.2.), and since the standards of the certification regime (Living Forest 1998, 2001) had not yet been agreed, assumptions regarding the details of the standards had to be made. The analyses were done using Gaya-SGIS and included maintaining minimum proportions of old- growth forest, prolonged rotation cycles, treatments in buffer zones related to key biotopes, water bodies (rivers, lakes, etc.) and mires. The analyses at national and regional levels were based on NFI sample plots. The assumptions made for the treatments related to the environmentally oriented restrictions (Hoen et al. 1998), however, were mostly imposed according to a general description of the forest contitions, and not based on spatially explicit prescriptions from observations in the field. For the analyses made at the property level (Eid et al. 2001), the analyses were based on observations of, for example, border zones and key habitats derived from maps or observed in field. However, the assumptions were still based on the expected standards and not on those finally agreed upon.

Later, Ask et al. (2005) and Bergseng et al. (2009) performed analyses using Gaya-SGIS comprising data from Ski Municipality forest based on the assumptions and prescriptions of the silvicultural treatments from current Living Forest standards (Living Forest 2010). To date, however, the new standards have not been operationalized for NFI sample plots. The following sections provide descriptions and discussions regarding the most important environmentally oriented restrictions, and the impact these restrictions may have on the utilization of timber and biomass resources in Norway.

3.2.2. Environmentally oriented instruments and their impact on forest production

Environmentally oriented instruments in Norway range from ‘hard’ instruments related to legislation and regulations to certification regimes and standards, and to ‘soft’ instruments such as preservation administered by individual forest owners. Important Acts influencing forest production in Norway are the Act relating to the management of biological, geological and landscape diversity (Nature Diversity Act, Act No. 100 of 19 June 2009), the Act relating to forestry (Forestry Act, Act No. 31 of 27 May 2005), the Act relating to outdoor recreation

(Outdoor Recreation Act, Act No. 16 of 28 June 1957), the Act relating to planning and building (The Planning and Building Act, Act No. 77 of 14 June 1985), and the Act relating to river systems and groundwater (Water Resources Act, Act No. 82 of 24 November 2000).

The Living Forests standard has been implemented as basis for forest certification in Norway. Living Forests is a collaborative project between various stakeholders (forest owners, forest industry, trade unions, outdoor recreation organizations, and environmental organizations) to develop a framework for sustainable forest management. The main aim of the project is to achieve a balance between the three aspects forest production, environment, and social interests. The outcome was the published standard ‘Living Forests: Standard for sustainable forest management in Norway’. The current standard is documented by Living Forest (2010). Most of the Norwegian forests are now certified according to the standard, either as individual properties or by group certification. The criteria applied as Living Forest standards fulfil the requirements of certification according to PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification). A working group is currently preparing a Norwegian Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standard. Until this is ready it is possible to certify forests through a ‘generic’ standard. However, the FSC is not widespread in Norway to date.

Nature Diversity Act (see Table 3, first four columns)

The most important legislation restricting forest production in Norway is the Nature Diversity Act (Act No. 100 of 19 June 2009). There are four relevant categories of site protection under this act: Nature Reserve (§ 37), National Park (§ 35), Protected Landscape Area (§ 36), and Habitat Management Area (§ 38). There is also a fifth category of protection, Nature types (§ 52), which not yet has been put into practice. This category may influence forest production in future.

In general, protection is established by the King in Council by means of management regulations specific for each site. Nature Reserves and National Parks provide a strong protection regime. Normal timber production activities are not allowed, and these two categories are therefore considered as fully protected. Protected Landscape Areas and Habitat Management Areas both imply restrictions on the utilization of the forest resources. The regulations, however, vary between sites and the prescriptions of treatments are partly formulated as ‘recommendations’ and partly as ‘requirements’. The prescriptions may be connected to continuous cover forestry (i.e. selective cutting required) and regeneration method and size of the clear-cut area (e.g. 0.2 ha). In addition, road construction is normally prohibited. If clear cutting is not allowed for such areas,

the immediately available harvest quantities are obviously reduced. Applying selective cuttings, however, does not necessarily reduce the production and harvests in the long run (Lexerød 2007, Andreassen 1994). This depends on local forest conditions and suitability for applying selective cutting (Lexerød & Eid 2006). The impact of the regulations also varies according to how strongly they are formulated. If, for example, natural regeneration is a total requirement, the impact may be high, while it may be lower if natural regeneration in the regulations is stated as ‘the preferred method when suitable’. To what extent prohibition of road construction reduces harvests is an economic issue that depends on terrain conditions and distance to presently existing roads.

Living Forest Standard and legislation (see Table 4, first four columns)

The Forestry Act (Act No. 31 of 27 May 2005) imposes several restrictions on forest management. Most restrictions are materialized in the Living Forest Standard (Living Forest 2010). Also other Acts are closely related to and partly work parallel with the Living Forest standard. The most important requirements in the standard, namely buffer zones, protection of key habitats, retention of living trees and dead wood, management adaptations for outdoor recreation activities, management adaptations in mountainous areas, forest structure, game habitats, and cultural monuments, are described in the following:

- The Water Resources Act (Act No. 82 of 24 November 2000) requires a natural belt of vegetation to be maintained along the banks of river systems with perennial flow (§ 11). The Living Forest Standard, section 12, states that buffer zones are required to be maintained or developed not only along river systems, but also along smaller streams, bogs, lakes, and cultural landscapes. The background for this standard is the high number of vital ecological functions related to biodiversity, water quality, landscape, and outdoor recreation served by the buffer zones.

The basic buffer zones’ width given in the Living Forest Standard is 10–15 m. However, the width should be adapted to local conditions and may vary within individual buffer zones, i.e. it may be narrowed down to 5 m or widened up to 30 m. Maintenance of existing zones or development of new zones implies that harvesting is allowed to a certain extent, i.e. maintenance by selective cutting in existing buffer zones or a more intensive harvesting in a one-storied forest where suitable trees are left to develop a new buffer zone. There are a few exceptions where the requirement of a buffer zone may be ignored, e.g. for the purposes of outdoor recreation (Living Forest Standard) and constructions connected to river systems (Water Resources Act). Thus,

there are three aspects related to buffer zones that are challenging when estimating the impact on forestry activities: 1) varying buffer zone widths, 2) different extents of harvesting allowed within the buffer zones, and 3) exceptions where the requirements may be ignored.

- Key habitats are defined as especially valuable sites from a conservation point of view, normally based on the presence of rare forest types or unusual structural elements, or the presence of rare species (Sverdrup-Thygeson 2002).According to the Living Forest Standard, key habitats ‘shall

be inventoried, selected, documented and specified on maps’. There is no fixed general level for

how much of a productive forest area that should be specified as a key habitat. The inventory instructions and the selection among the key habitats identified in the field vary according to local conditions at municipality level and the abundance of certain habitats at national level. For habitats that are rare at national level, but which frequently appear locally, only a small part may be finally specified as a key habitat, whereas all of them may be finally specified if the frequency is very low locally.

Two methods for identifying the key habitats in field are officially approved: Miljøregistrering i Skog (MiS) (Hotspot Inventory in Forests) and the Siste Sjanse-metoden (SiS) (Last Chance Method). The approaches of the two methods for identifying key habitats differ. While MiS focuses on habitats, i.e. certain forest types and structural elements, SiS focuses on the presence of indicator species. The Norwegian NFI has applied the MiS method for its sample plot inventory.

In general, the impact of key habitats on immediate harvest as well as long-term production is high. The key habitats may be totally preserved or some restriction may be imposed (i.e. some harvesting may take place). If harvesting is allowed, this has to be done in a way that does not weaken the conditions for biodiversity or that improves the conditions for biodiversity. In practice, this implies selective cutting. Thus, there are at least three aspects related to key habitats that are challenging when assessing the impact on forestry activities: 1) two different approaches to fieldwork, 2) the selection process for final specification of key habitats, and 3) varying levels of harvesting.

- According to the Living Forest Standard, section 8, an average of 10 living wind-resistant trees ha-1 must be left after harvesting. These retention trees should normally be selected among the oldest, and thus often the largest trees. The retention trees can also be part of buffer zones. Thus,

the actual effect of this requirement may be less than the effect of leaving 10 large trees ha-1 after harvesting.

- Also dead wood, such as standing dead deciduous trees, large dead pines, natural high stumps, and dead wood older than five years lying on the ground, should normally not be harvested (Living Forest Standard, section 8). Some of this wood could potentially be used for pulpwood or energy purposes. The general impact of this requirement, however, is low.

- In Norway the rights of every person to unimpeded access to the forests are strong. This is regulated through the Outdoor Recreation Act (Act No. 16 of 28 June 1957), section 2, which state that ‘any person is entitled to access to and passage through uncultivated land at all times

of year, provided that consideration and due care is shown’ (§ 2). The same applies to passage

on horseback or with a packhorse, sledge, and bicycle on roads and paths. The Act also includes the right to pick berries and mushrooms. Some areas will naturally be more used for outdoor recreation than others, e.g. some coastal and mountainous areas. In such cases, the recreation areas can be secured by the State through compensation of the forest owner, or by means of a municipal zoning plan (The Planning and Building Act, Act No. 77 of 14 June 1985). In addition to forest areas set aside especially for outdoor recreation, general considerations should be taken regarding harvesting activities to secure outdoor recreation (section 7 in the Living Forest Standard).

All of the above-mentioned situations imply restrictions on forestry activities. The practical impact will most likely differ between the type of restriction (forest areas set aside especially for outdoor recreation as opposed to smaller adjustments of forest management for outdoor recreation).

- Two kinds of restrictions exist related to forest areas adjacent to mountains: those stipulated under the Forestry Act and those by the Living Forest Standard. The Forestry Act defines ‘protective forests’ as areas where the forest serves as protection zone for other forest or provides protection against natural damage (§ 12). This applies to areas near mountains or on the coast, where forests are vulnerable. According to the Forestry Act, the County Agricultural Committees have the authority to issue regulations governing ‘protective forests’. Rules are normally provided concerning the obligation to report to the authorities before any harvesting is done.

Also, the Living Forest Standard, section 6 – Mountain forest, regulates forest management in mountain areas. The intention is to secure the biodiversity and recreational values of mountain forests. According to section 6, the lower border of mountain forests is identical to the border of protective forests in mountain areas, as defined in the Forestry Act. Thus, these areas will overlap.

In general, harvesting in mountainous areas should be done in a way that promotes or maintains a mature forest character. The harvesting method for spruce should as far as possible follow the ‘mountain forest selection system’, which requires that after harvesting the forest is still classified as development class IV or V. Small clear-cutting areas regenerated with seed trees are allowed in pine forests. There are at least two aspects related to mountainous forests that are challenging when assessing the impact on forestry activities: 1) protective forest borders are not available at a national scale, and 2) varying levels of removals in the harvesting.

- The Living Forest Standard, section 19 – Forest structure, requires that at any given time at least 30% of Norwegian forests should have a forest structure that is beneficial to species living in mature forests. This requirement does not apply to the property level, and measures can only be taken if the data from NFI show that the proportion of development class IV and V at county level is less than 30%. The practical impacts on the activities are therefore rather low.

- Section 14 – Landscape plan, in the Living Forest standard is intended to secure that forest management takes care of interests across stand and holding boundaries. Included here are considerations regarding game habitats and mating areas for capercaillie (wood grouse, Tetrao

urogallus). The considerations are the same for all forestry activities, but there is no requirement

for developing a landscape plan for small properties (Sverdrup-Thygeson et al. 2002). However, smaller forest properties known game habitats will, in most cases, be included in the forest management plan. A specific requirement may, for example, be a 50 m buffer zone around nests belonging to goshawks (Accipiter gentilis), where no harvesting is allowed.

- All monuments and sites originating from before 1537 and all Sami monuments and sites more than 100 years old are automatically protected (Act Concerning the Cultural Heritage, Act No.50 of 9 June 1978). The Living Forest standard, section 13, concerns the protection of cultural monuments and aims to secure all protected and other valuable monuments and sites in Norwegian forests. Planting, soil scarification or other measures that might pose a threat to a

monument or site is prohibited. Identification of cultural monuments in field may be a challenge because not all of them are surveyed and mapped. Cultural remains are not recorded by the Norwegian NFI.

Other regulations (see Table 5, first four columns)

- The Ministry of Environment apply INON-areas as a tool for preserving existing wild areas in Norway (Parliamentary bill 1 S (2009-2010)). INON-areas are described as areas without major infrastructure development and defined as being 1 km or longer in distance from technical installations such as roads, railways and power lines. The general aim is to protect such areas from new technical installations. Regular harvesting is not regarded as a ‘new technical installation’, but forest roads are. The forest management of such areas will therefore be indirectly influenced because road construction is not allowed. The impact of these regulations will vary according to whether it is profitable or not to carry out regular harvesting activities within the present road system. The profitability depends on local conditions, such as distance from harvesting site to nearest road, and terrain factors such as steepness, soil conditions, cliffs, etc. (see also Eriksen et al. 2004).

- In forest areas close to densely populated areas special restrictions may be imposed. Such restrictions may vary from being legislative to being administrative. The area surrounding Oslo, for example, is regulated under the Act relating to nature areas in Oslo and nearby municipalities (Act No. 35 of 5 June 2009). Also, in other forested areas owned by the municipalities, management is often adjusted to meet the demands of the public (e.g. Ski Municipality forests, Trondheim Municipality forests). These adjustments may be anchored both administratively and politically, and thus strongly binding. The impact of these restrictions may vary considerably. The practical silvicultural prescriptions, however, are usually connected to limitations on clear- cutting or recommendations for selective cutting.

- Also other restrictions and regulations not previously described may have an impact on forestry activities. Some examples are restrictions related to forest areas that recently have been burned, general adjustments of forest management for wildlife and landscape reasons, administratively protected private areas, and restrictions related to some nature types based on registrations at municipal level.

According to the Living Forest Standard, section 4, ‘at least 5% of productive forest areas shall be

managed as areas of ecological importance’. Such areas include key habitats (provided by Living

Forests Standard) and nature reserves and national parks (provide for under the Nature Diversity Act). If these elements do not fulfil the 5% requirement, a forest owner may make up the deficit by selecting areas from different forest types (e.g. calcareous forests, swamp forests, broadleaved temperate forests, pasture woodland, and other types). Also buffer zones in development classes IV and V may be included. Non-productive forest land may constitute up to 25% of the 5% area requirement. Thus, requirement stipulated by section 4 of the Living Forest Standard will most likely not influence the forest activities directly.

3.2.3. Challenges in operationalizing impacts

In addition to the actual management prescriptions related to the environmentally oriented restrictions and the impact they may have on immediate harvests and long-term production, many challenges need be faced to ensure that the prescriptions are operational when assessing available